Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

oralloy wrote:

oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
(Or are there years where Switzerland had a huge homicide rate that I don't know about?)

Switzerland has laws that require registration and personal signature upon the purchase of ammunition. Are you proposing that the US require that too?

Switzerland also requires a permit to purchase a weapon. According to Wikipedia that permit restricts you to 3 weapons.

The permit is something like a background check is here in the US. If you pass the background check, you get the permit.

Last I knew, even that basic permit was not required for bolt-action rifles and double-barreled shotguns.

I also don't remember any limit to three weapons. Is that three per purchase permit, or three that you can own period? I'll have to check and see if they've changed their laws since last I reviewed them.

As far as I can tell, each permit allows you to purchase only one weapon. But there is nothing to stop someone from going back and getting more permits if they want to buy more weapons.

I didn't see anything about a limit to three weapons.

oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
Do you want the same laws as Switzerland? I would be fine with them. Would you?

Presuming you included the militia in the package, I'd be absolutely delighted with Swiss gun laws.

We'd finally be in compliance with the Second Amendment.

One exception. I'd want to retain our shall-issue concealed carry laws.
Other than that I'd be fine with Swiss law (if the militia were included).

I wud NOT.
The Bill of Rights mandates
that government have no jurisdiction
over personal weaponry.

That is not subject to compromise,
except only by a constitutional amendment of repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
David

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
For the sake of argument lets use a simple 3 year moving average from the Australian numbers. You take 3 years and average them then compare the averages from year to year. It helps to eliminate anomalies.
We can also use 5 year if you want.

The 3 year average of murder rates in Australia starting with 1993-96 and ending with 2003-2005
1.7
1.7
1.666666667
1.666666667
1.633333333
1.666666667
1.6
1.6
1.566666667
1.466666667
1.366666667

The drop is "significant", a 20% drop in murder rates.

I'm not sure that we are in disagreement here.

If the 1.3 rate holds, I agree that that is a moderately significant drop.

At least we have gone from "slight dip" to "moderatly significant." Any state or city I know would not consider it moderate to have a 20% drop in their murder rate.

Quote:

If the 1.3 rates are an anomaly and not part of a trend, then the drop is only from 1.7 to 1.6.

how is 1.3 the same thing as 1.6? There have been 2 years of 1.3.

The 3 year and 5 year averages show it is a trend. That is why you do such averages, to eliminate anomalies.

Yet somehow you say it is only a drop from 1.7 to 1.6? Based on what? Your beliefs? Because there is no way to mathematically make 1.3 become 1.6.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
If the 1.3 rate holds, I agree that that is a moderately significant drop.

At least we have gone from "slight dip" to "moderatly significant."

Depends on whether the 1.3 figures are an anomaly or not.

If it turns out that the drop is only from 1.7 to 1.6, I'll still say it is only a slight dip.

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

If the 1.3 rates are an anomaly and not part of a trend, then the drop is only from 1.7 to 1.6.

how is 1.3 the same thing as 1.6? There have been 2 years of 1.3.

I don't recall saying that it was the same thing. I believe I said it wasn't clear whether it was an anomaly. We'll need more figures from future years to see whether the average is more like 1.3 or more like 1.6.

parados wrote:

The 3 year and 5 year averages show it is a trend.

I agree that there is a trend. I am just unsure whether it is a trend "from 1.7 to 1.6" or a trend "from 1.7 to 1.3".

Only more data from future years will satisfy me on that question.

parados wrote:

Yet somehow you say it is only a drop from 1.7 to 1.6? Based on what?

No, I say it MIGHT be a drop from 1.7 and 1.6.

Based on the possibility that the 1.3 figures might be an anomaly.

When I first said it was a slight dip, I hadn't seen the figures for 2004 and 2005, so the lower figures from those years are new to me.

However, having now seen them, I am not convinced that they are anything more than an anomaly. The only thing that will convince me otherwise is more years of similarly-low data.

0 Replies

In JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER (195O) 339 US 763, the US Supreme Court
held that the US Bill of Rights did not protect German enemy aliens, as:

"Such a construction would mean that during military occupation ...
enemy elements, guerrilla fighters, and 'werewolves' could require the
American Judiciary to assure them

freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, as in the First Amendment,
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS as in the Second,
security against 'unreasonable' searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as
well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments." [emphasis added]

Observe that the Supreme Court finds no need to refer to any state
government militia; this holding, and the choice of words in which it is expressed,
concern PERSONAL RIGHTS, not rights of state governments against Uncle Sam.

0 Replies

The 3 year and 5 year averages are used to remove anomalies.

3 years in a row is NOT an anomaly. It defies the term. Such an argument would allow me to point to any 3 years that are similar and call them an anomaly. It would allow me to point to the years from 1997-2000 as anomalies in the normal rate for robberies. It would allow for an easy argument that getting rid of guns did NOT make crime go up since those years are anomalies and we are back to the normal rates now.

Your argument is nothing but an attempt to ignore facts orralloy. If you don't like the facts then just call them anomalies and write them off.

The fact of the matter is that there was a significant reduction in murders in Australia which refutes your claim that murders would stay the same if you had stronger gun laws since people would just use knives instead.

0 Replies

Quote:

When I first said it was a slight dip, I hadn't seen the figures for 2004 and 2005, so the lower figures from those years are new to me.

The figures for 2004 and 2005 are new to you?

You provided them in the same post you used the words "dipped slightly" along with the link of where to find them.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The 3 year and 5 year averages are used to remove anomalies.

3 years in a row is NOT an anomaly. It defies the term. Such an argument would allow me to point to any 3 years that are similar and call them an anomaly. It would allow me to point to the years from 1997-2000 as anomalies in the normal rate for robberies. It would allow for an easy argument that getting rid of guns did NOT make crime go up since those years are anomalies and we are back to the normal rates now.

I think it is "two years in a row", and we have yet to see if the 2005 numbers will be revised.

And I don't think the numbers are back to normal now. The robbery rates are still 10 points higher.

parados wrote:

Your argument is nothing but an attempt to ignore facts oralloy.

No, it is me refusing to jump to a conclusion without sufficient data.

parados wrote:

The fact of the matter is that there was a significant reduction in murders in Australia which refutes your claim that murders would stay the same if you had stronger gun laws since people would just use knives instead.

We'll see what the data says in a few years.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The figures for 2004 and 2005 are new to you?

Yes. They weren't there the last time I took a look at the data.

I suspect the figures for 2005 were released pretty recently.

parados wrote:

You provided them in the same post you used the words "dipped slightly" along with the link of where to find them.

I did present the data, yes. Instead of using old links I already had, I did a fresh search so I could get the most up to date data. That added some years that I hadn't seen before.

If the last two years continue as a trend, I'll have to modify my claim that there was "a large increase in robbery and a minor dip in murder" and instead say there was "a moderately significant increase in robbery and a moderately significant decrease in murder".

But time will tell.

0 Replies

Oh yeah..
3 years in a row below 1.6 but it might be an anomoly.. and the number could really be 1.6. It was 1.6 for 3 years. You sure the 1.6 isn't the anomaly?

Meanwhile 3 years in a row of higher robbery rates can't be an anomaly but show a significant increase in your tortured world.

Too funny oralloy when you make this claim.
"I didn't see the numbers because I posted them."

The numbers could be revised? That's another nice dodge. The sun could fall out of the sky tomorrow too so we can't trust the numbers that we don't agree with.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
The 3 year and 5 year averages are used to remove anomalies.

3 years in a row is NOT an anomaly. It defies the term. Such an argument would allow me to point to any 3 years that are similar and call them an anomaly. It would allow me to point to the years from 1997-2000 as anomalies in the normal rate for robberies. It would allow for an easy argument that getting rid of guns did NOT make crime go up since those years are anomalies and we are back to the normal rates now.

I think it is "two years in a row", and we have yet to see if the 2005 numbers will be revised.

And I don't think the numbers are back to normal now. The robbery rates are still 10 points higher.

The robbery rates are still 10 point higher than a single year. They are lower than the average for the time period. But a single low year couldn't be an anomaly, could it? Oh, I guess it can't be an anomaly if it supports your argument.

0 Replies

There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Taking my gun away to protect me from myself is one of the first two. The math used to justify such action is the third.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Oh yeah..
3 years in a row below 1.6 but it might be an anomoly.. and the number could really be 1.6. It was 1.6 for 3 years. You sure the 1.6 isn't the anomaly?

Time will tell.

parados wrote:

Too funny oralloy when you make this claim.
"I didn't see the numbers because I posted them."

I don't recall making that claim.

(And I have excellent recall.)

parados wrote:

The numbers could be revised? That's another nice dodge.

No it's a fact.

You seem upset that I'm not willing to accept that the 1.3 stats represent a trend without further evidence. I'm not sure why that upsets you.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The robbery rates are still 10 point higher than a single year. They are lower than the average for the time period. But a single low year couldn't be an anomaly, could it?

Could be. Got official numbers from before 1993? If so, I'd love to incorporate them into my figures.

0 Replies

Emphasis mine...

OmSigDAVID wrote:

JustanObserver wrote:

Examples:
People who have been convicted of violent felonies,

No.
I favor concurrent federal and state jurisdiction for BANISHMENT of violently felonious recidivists; i.e., loss of citizenship, and removal from the North American Continent, with violation of the banishment prohibited on pain of death.

Quote:

People who suffer some form of mental incapacity,

If they are dangerous, they shud be confined to mental hospitals.

...Legislating the conduct of the insane is like legislating the weather.

Quote:

Children under a certain age,
etc.?

Everyone has a right to defend himself, at any age, although it is impossible to exercise that right, during the first moments of life.

It is sad that Andrea Yates' children...

In any case, the control of guns was put beyond the reach of any government by the Founders of government, knowing, as they did ( up close n personal ) of the occasional need to remove government, as they had just finished doing.

Oh MAN, I am so glad I asked Laughing

Thank you, David. That was just... wow.

0 Replies

U r welcome, Justan;
( tho u sound a little emotional there )
David

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Taking my gun away to protect me from myself is one of the first two. The math used to justify such action is the third.

A foundational concept of Americanism
is that government has jurisdiction
to defend a citizen from the abuses of others,
but NO jurisdiction to defend us from our own poor judgment.
David

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
The robbery rates are still 10 point higher than a single year. They are lower than the average for the time period. But a single low year couldn't be an anomaly, could it?

Could be. Got official numbers from before 1993? If so, I'd love to incorporate them into my figures.

Oh... now 12 years of data could be an anomaly?

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
Oh yeah..
3 years in a row below 1.6 but it might be an anomoly.. and the number could really be 1.6. It was 1.6 for 3 years. You sure the 1.6 isn't the anomaly?

Time will tell.

parados wrote:
Too funny oralloy when you make this claim.
"I didn't see the numbers because I posted them."

I don't recall making that claim.

(And I have excellent recall.)

parados wrote:
The numbers could be revised? That's another nice dodge.

No it's a fact.

You seem upset that I'm not willing to accept that the 1.3 stats represent a trend without further evidence. I'm not sure why that upsets you.

Upsets me? I find it amazing that you can convince yourself that 3 years below 1.6 means it still averages 1.6 while one year out of 12 below 80 means that 82 is 10 points higher. You are complete blind to reality because the numbers don't fit into the way you want it to be.

Take just the numbers to your local high school and ask any algebra student if there is a trend in the numbers. Go ask college professors. Go ask anyone without telling them what the numbers mean. I guarantee 90% or more of the answers will be there is an obvious trend. NO ONE will try to tell you that the last 2 numbers are anomalies.

Of course you have proved you have NO NUMBERS that show that if we get rid of guns the murder rate will stay the same. In fact you have proved you will NEVER have such numbers since any such numbers even if it is 12 years worth could be an anomaly.

0 Replies

Actually, if some of you control freaks want something to worry about, you might consider this:

http://aftershockarchery.com/

http://aftershockarchery.com/images/layout/hypershock_sm3.gif

These guys have damned near made firearms obsolete for hunting. The basic Aftershock mechanical broadhead is as big an innovation as the compound bow itself; it uses no energy getting past hide, ribs, and gristle layers, and opens to a two inch cutting edge inside the animal. That's on top of flying like a target point, i.e. no planing at all.

The web site shows a girl with a 45-lb bow and a 450 lb boar hog she killed with it:

http://aftershockarchery.com/images/prostaff/wohlfeil_1.jpg

Any normal mechanical broadhead and the hog walks off laughing. I had a really big deer take four steps and collapse like he'd had a heart attack with one of the small ones of those last fall and they say they're getting the same kind of ten second kills on cape buffalo with the bigger ones. A typical 30-caliber deer kill is not that clean. You usually find the deer 40 - 100 yards from where he was shot.

0 Replies

I'm so glad you brought that up, gungasnake.

I can't walk through Brooklyn at night without hearing gangs shouting "You just been 'Aftershocked' mothafukka!" and seeing broadhead arrows fly past my face.

Groups of thugs, wandering the streets with longbows (painted in their gang colors, of course), with the occasional flareup of violence when a rival gang shows up, stops the car and they start shooting arrows at one another. It's a terrible sight.

The worst is when I walk into a bodega and some crackhead comes in with a bow and arrow pointed at the store owner (unfortunately, he usually gets the help of another crackhead to open the door for him, since he's already at full draw).

But worst of all is when a child finds his dads fully loaded bow and arrow set in his underwear drawer (yeah, it's a looooong underwear drawer), and he starts playing with it and accidentally gets shoots himself in the face with a Hypershock broadhead.

Thank you. Thank you for making such a relevant and applicable comparison. Lets just hope the world pays attention.

0 Replies

Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know